[3.5/PF] No magic-item campaign

[Mighty_Chicken]

Hey guys. I think this must be a fairly common question around here, but I've been thinking, what would be the balance repercutions of a no magic item/fewest possible magic item campaign in Pathfinder or 3.5?

I've alredy set adventures in semi-historical scenarios. Luckily I had no magic using PCs. But I'm thinking that maybe in higher levels, this really must imbalance the game?

Right now, I'm thinking of a campaign where there are almost no magic items; and magic-users are highly hindered, while given some boost to skills (and I intend to boost the importance of skills, btw).

[Answerer]

It doesn't work. Find a new system built from the ground up to support this kind of play, because 3.x is very close to the highest-magic system available, and does not respond well to magic simply being stripped out. You need to go over every potential challenge and address whether or not it's still even possible without magic, and you'll find that as you get higher in level, very few things are.

If you do not also rip out the magic-using classes, then you've massively widened the already-enormous gap between magic and mundane classes. Mundane classes rely on magic items to get the magic they don't get natively. Magic classes will miss a few things, but ultimately they'll still have magic, which means they all-but-automatically beat anyone who doesn't. Magic trumps all, and changing that requires rewriting the system.

[ericgrau]

+1 ^

It could work ok for levels 1-4, maybe 5, and 1-3 aren't the greatest levels to play at for unrelated reasons. Higher than that the system simply revolves around magic items and magic. Pick another system.

[paddyfool]

What Answerer said.

EDIT: The closest thing you could find to 3.5 which might work for this would be the E6 rules variant.

The closest thing to 3.5 you could find which is built with this as a definite and legitimate option is in my sig. (That said, it's about as far from 3.5 as 4th ed is, although in a different direction).

[Answerer]

Legend is fairly high-power/heroic fantasy, but it does natively support the idea of an item-less character, and you can even get pretty high level avoiding almost everything that is magical. You will get three abilities from "magical locations" but those effects can very easily be refluffed as non-magical acumen if you like.

But this is very much Tome of Battle-style low-magic: the magic's been replaced with impossible levels of skills, speed, strength, etc. Whether or not that works for what you want depends a lot on what you're doing. These effects can be kept to a minimum by staying at low level, though.

[Gavinfoxx]

An E6, Codex Martialis game, where there are only mundane animals, mundane humans (no monsters), and the only allowed classes in the entire setting are Rogue, Warrior, Fighter, Aristocrat, Commoner and Expert, might work.

[Mighty_Chicken]

Ok, suppose I'm that bold and I try to do something like this in 3.x. What's the worse that could happen? I mean, in a campaign with no magic users, and just mundanes, what's the worse that could happen without the items?

I'm aware of the gap between mundane and magic. But let's say I won't allow any magic beyoung 3rd level magic. Actually, I'll hinder magic users even further, forcing them to multiclass with NPC classes.

I was already thinking of limiting levels after the 5th. After that, instead of getting new BBA/skills/hitpoints/abilities each level, a character would get just one of these. And hitpoints and BBA specifically would be the most hindered, pursuing a more "realistic" (but not really, right?) style.

So, a second question would be, would maim the progression speed after some point (or even since the beginning) help to make magic items unnecessary?


An E6, Codex Martialis game, where there are only mundane animals, mundane humans (no monsters), and the only allowed classes in the entire setting are Rogue, Warrior, Fighter, Aristocrat, Commoner and Expert, might work.

Haha, wow. Ok, that's radical. I'm checking out all those systems you guys are talking about, for sure.

I know legend already. I must say I like it a lot. I thought of using it, but players start to non-magically fly too early IMO ^^

[Dusk Eclipse]

If you only have them fight humanoids and animals there won't be much of a problem; but if you start throwing monsters with supernatural abilities and/or defences problems will start to come up. For example no matter what, without a magic weapon all incorporeal enemies (mostly undeads; but I am sure there are other types of incorporeal enemies) will laugh at your feeble attempts to harm them.

[Gavinfoxx]

Haha, wow. Ok, that's radical. I'm checking out all those systems you guys are talking about, for sure.

http://www.rpgnow.com/product/65250/Codex-Martialis-Set-%5BBUNDLE%5D

http://esix.pbworks.com/w/page/9900109/FrontPage

http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?352719-necro-goodness-E6-The-Game-Inside-D-amp-D

[Mighty_Chicken]

Ok, but the immuties/weaknesses thing can be easily overcome, right?

So for example, I'd either say that +1 and +2 DR is replaced by something common as silver; and bigger DR's would require a ritual, an oilment, a +1 weapon that only one of them have and that worths so much a baron is after them trying to steal it; and maybe, the players shouldn't overcome it. Maybe sometimes they should run away from monsters (like ethereal creatures).

But this sounds like something I'd have fun tweaking. Is there anything I should be afraid of? Something very boring or hopeless to fix?

(then again, I ask both in a simple no-magic campaign, or in the homebrew variation I presented)

EDIT: thank you, gavinfoxx

[ericgrau]

If this is mainly for fluff you could give the players points equal to their WBL, where 1 point = 1,000 gp. Then have them buy magic item abilities at level up, at the same conversion rate (+2 strength is 4 points, doesn't stack, etc.). I have some charts in my sig, but basically any stat boosting item (ability scores, AC, etc.) that wouldn't shatter the no magic fluff is fair game. But leave at least 2,000-3,000 gp in actual gold to cover mundane and masterwork items.

The game would still fall apart with high level monsters that have magical or supernatural abilities or that expect the players to have them, like flight. But it might make the campaign playable as high as level 8. Or you could use E6 in combination with this.

[Dusk Eclipse]

Ok, but the immuties/weaknesses thing can be easily overcome, right?

So for example, I'd either say that +1 and +2 DR is replaced by something common as silver; and bigger DR's would require a ritual, an oilment, a +1 weapon that only one of them have and that worths so much a baron is after them trying to steal it; and maybe, the players shouldn't overcome it. Maybe sometimes they should run away from monsters (like ethereal creatures).

But this sounds like something I'd have fun tweaking. Is there anything I should be afraid of? Something very boring or hopeless to fix?

(then again, I ask both in a simple no-magic campaign, or in the homebrew variation I presented)

EDIT: thank you, gavinfoxx

That just proves Answerer's point, D&D 3.5 wasn't designed with the idea of low-magic in mind, heck the game assumes you will have certain elements by certain points of the game (evidence, the WBL chart).

Frankly I think it is too much work to do and even if you do I would still say that finding another game would be better.

[Gavinfoxx]

Frankly I think it is too much work to do and even if you do I would still say that finding another game would be better.

Agreed. If you want to run crazy monsters that badass normals can take care of via intelligent preparation and good tactics and mundane ability... D&D 3.5e is exactly the wrong system to do this!!

[Arbane]

That just proves Answerer's point, D&D 3.5 wasn't designed with the idea of low-magic in mind, heck the game assumes you will have certain elements by certain points of the game (evidence, the WBL chart).

Frankly I think it is too much work to do and even if you do I would still say that finding another game would be better.

Agreed.

I know there's been a few attempts at low-magic d20 fantasy: Conan and Iron Gauntlets, I think? I haven't played either, but they might be worth looking at.

[Answerer]

I find it very odd that everyone told me I was overreacting in the level 15 no-magic thread the other day, yet in this thread everyone's agreeing with me.

Heh, at any rate, I certainly agree with myself.

The Legend system I mentioned, since I saw a request for links, is developed by Rule of Cool (http://www.ruleofcool.com/), several of whom were members here (and the system grew out of the Test of Spite that used to be run from this forum).

[TopCheese]

Well everytime a DM says "Hey I'm running a low/no magic item game" I reply with "Well I have this Incarnate/Totemist build I've been wanting to play..."

Thos are the two classes that don't really need items or even want them due to chakra binding.

[Gavinfoxx]

I always try to play an Easy Bake Wizard or a Druid for low magic item games...

[tyckspoon]

Well everytime a DM says "Hey I'm running a low/no magic item game" I reply with "Well I have this Incarnate/Totemist build I've been wanting to play..."

Thos are the two classes that don't really need items or even want them due to chakra binding.

They get along better than most without items, but I would hesitate to go so far as to say they don't need them and I certainly wouldn't say they don't *want* them- even if you only use your Soulmelds, any Incarnum-based character would probably appreciate having a handful of Essentia Jewels in reserve and getting Incarnum Focuses for their favorite meld slots. And that'd be the extreme case, because even if you are using all of your binds you'll still have half or more of your body slots open that could have a magic item on them.

[Mighty_Chicken]

That just proves Answerer's point, D&D 3.5 wasn't designed with the idea of low-magic in mind, heck the game assumes you will have certain elements by certain points of the game (evidence, the WBL chart).

Frankly I think it is too much work to do and even if you do I would still say that finding another game would be better.

Why does this proves the point? Fixing immunities is easy peasy. "Sorry mr Vampire, I don't like magic weapons so now garlic surpasses your DR". I'm more worried about balancing AC/HP/Damage to monster that were designed to be defeated by wizards and fighters with flaming swords... would that be that hard? And beginning at what level?



If this is mainly for fluff you could give the players points equal to their WBL, where 1 point = 1,000 gp. Then have them buy magic item abilities at level up, at the same conversion rate (+2 strength is 4 points, doesn't stack, etc.). I have some charts in my sig, but basically any stat boosting item (ability scores, AC, etc.) that wouldn't shatter the no magic fluff is fair game. But leave at least 2,000-3,000 gp in actual gold to cover mundane and masterwork items.

The game would still fall apart with high level monsters that have magical or supernatural abilities or that expect the players to have them, like flight. But it might make the campaign playable as high as level 8. Or you could use E6 in combination with this.

Hm, thanks, this is great advice.


Agreed.

I know there's been a few attempts at low-magic d20 fantasy: Conan and Iron Gauntlets, I think? I haven't played either, but they might be worth looking at.

I read Conan's rulebook once. It even tries to make melee classes more diverse, by splitting AC into two stats, one weaker to strong blows, and another weaker to finesse. I didn't read their magic rules but they do make magic users weaker.

Gavinfoxx, I felt stupid for thinking about a level cap for so long, just to find out that's what the infamous "E6" was about. Seems fine to me!

Where is this no magic 15 lvl campaign thread? So I can have a different perspective?